Pages

Friday, August 30, 2013

Like Paso Robles, Los Osos had it's own little come to Jesus meeting last night at the Community Center when Rob Miller presented to the LOCSD a power point presentation of the draft plan hammered out for years by the ISJ working group, the major water purveyors -- CSD, Golden West, S&T, the county, etc.

The 300+ page draft outlines the ISJ's agreements, goals, some of which include: Halt seawater intrusion, provide a sustainable water yield and conservation goals. Also included are ongoing updated hydrological assessments, the creation of a water data base for future plans. It also looks ahead for ag use and issues arising from rising seas and global temperature changes since less rainfall will have a profound impact on water availability.

Right now, municipal water users are metered, the private well yields are estimated as are ag wells. Private well metering and reporting is encouraged, but as I learned at Tuesday's BOS hearing on Paso Robles, wells and well water is private property and the amounts pumped are subject to often arcane laws. Which means, in Los Osos, as in Paso, well owners are free to pump whatever water they want without paying into the whole system, so costs to pay for water improvement (availability and quality) enjoyed by well owners will be paid by for by "urban" users. That includes ag use. And, as in Paso, any effort to change that would involve a complex effort to create some kind of mechanism that would bring well users into the shared system.

While "urban" water use has declined about 40% , the challenge here is to reduce that amount even further while using various strategies to increase yield so as to first reach stasis -- one cup out, one cup returned -- then to decrease use and increase return so as to begin to improve the basin and push salt water intrusion back.

Maximizing yield is planned by a variety of measures, both by the purveyors and by the public, including increased conservation efforts, retrofits, reduced development, moving wells from west to east, better measures to capture and retain rainwater and run-off, greywater use, community-wide xerescaping, expanded purple piping, water-banking using decommissioned septics and etc.

(A side note: If the plan is serious about counting on greater conservation plans, somebody better come up with better ways of doing it than the supposedly ongoing County's retrofit plans. That program seemed to reverse the carrot and stick idea: If you retrofitted your house early, to be a good citizen and save water long before you had to, you got zero rebate. If you continued to waste water with old toilets, and washing machines and you waited until the last minute then called the County, you got "rebates." Duh? According to public comments, that program apparently is barely moving ahead, with complaints that records show that only 12 toilets have been logged on as given "rebates?" If true, that program certainly could stand improvement, especially since ratepayers have already coughed up $5 mil for it and aren't going to be too happy to see so little bang for their buck, methinks.)

The plans offered in the draft run from least expensive to more expensive and will depend on what the community wants to do about staying in a moritorium or go to full build out, or aim for something inbetween. The choices also depend on whether the yield targets are met. They run from the simple--move wells, increase conservation, recharge from the sewer treatment plant, the plan most likely to be chosen first -- all the way to importing water from somewhere else.

The draft comment period will close in early October. Written comments can be sent to the CSD. The next step will be to go back to the judge, get the draft a stipulated judgement as quickly as possible, then move head.

Bottom line on all this: Mo' money.

Oddity of the night, an issue that also came up during the Paso hearings: Why are the sewer pipe contractors dumping gazillions of fresh water into the bay -- in the middle of a drought, in the face of a distressed aquifer in desperate need of recharging, not emptying? The water in question is the water from dewatering while the pipes are being laid. Who's in charge of such a foolish thing and how can it be stopped?

That question was asked while Paavo Ogren was sitting 4' away from the speaker. He said not a word. Eventually, the answer turned out to be this: The contractors are responsible for water dumping and, apparently, are allowed to continue dumping if that's more convenient (and less costly for them), rather than pump, pipe or truck that water onto land where at least it could get back down into the aquifer, and NOBODY can/will say otherwise. The astonished and outraged citizen even asking that question is met with a blank stare and a helpless shrug. Oh, well. Though the Regional Water Quality Control Board has written one of their "harumph" letters expressing concern that this is going on. A "harumph" letter and public questions and silence from the County means that water dumping -- a figure of 50 acre feet a day has been bandied about -- will continue unabated.

The insane, deliberately allowed loss of a vital community resource is typical of the kind of thing that has made the Hideous Sewer Project such a looneytune. And the blank-faced silence and indifferent shrugs from folks in charge of this project in the face of such idiocy is what has made the Hideous Sewer Project so crazy-making to so many concerned citizens.

I mean, really, dumping gazillions of gallons of water in the middle of a drought? Now, what movie does that remind me of . . . oh, yes, "Chinatown."

And I will confess that I have a new HE washer, just didn't get around to doing the rebate thing yet. I would say our newly higher water rates are going to curtail water use faster than any washing machine program anyway. So if we don't get all the washer rebates done, maybe the net result will be comparable.

We don't actually know how many gallons are going into the bay, Rob Miller said Ray Dienzo would be the contact person who could answer that. I don't think listening to Julie and Linde guessing numbers are the way to gauge what our reactions should be. When I see some real numbers then I will decide what to do. Just remember, we lose 1 million gallons of water to the bay EVERY DAY and have been for YEARS. Our perched aquifer and upper aquifer are overfilled with septic returns and it is leaking outta here!

Trucking water someplace has its drawbacks too. I recall Julie being very angry that the old project at Tri-W was to have 3 truck loads a day driving out of town. Consider that a truck can carry 5,500 to 11,600 gallons at a time, how many trucks would be needed just to remove the lower end of their "hair on fire" estimates, that 8 million gallons? Smog calculations anyone? Cost estimates? Traffic predictions?

Actually, it was three truckloads a WEEK, not a day from Tri-W. If that is untenable for Julie back in 2006 or 2007, how would 690 truckloads of water DAILY (at 11,600 gallons each) be OK, never mind where it was going to be put?

Pump water onto whose land? How much suitable land does the CSD own and where is it?

Or of course, you could just shut down the project until the solution to this could be provided....... hmmmmm. Think anyone has thought of this?

A gazillion is the exact number of comments that Lynette Tornatzky posted on my blog.... UNTIL I published a story where her names actually appears in connection with an over-the-top shady, "non"-profit (so-called) "corporation" -- ReCreate Los Osos -- that she and her husband, and, inexplicably, Marshall Ochylski, established for no apparent reason whatsoever... well, OTHER than "carrying on propaganda."

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!! I guess I should be flattered, but Ron is so hungry for a comment from me that he has come over onto a blog posting about the Los Osos water basin to comment on the word "gazillion" which has been used numerous times over the years on this very blog!

Ron was so far off on his assessment of the non-profit, never contacting any of the participants to gather information, before going off on a corkscrewed windy fable of his own invention! No need to comment there (plus I was not a member of the group, only the web designer)!

Really, Ron, your transparency costume has become a bit more than see-through, veering off into the indecent category.

Why don't you ever write about your own town? Nothing interesting ever happens there or are you afraid of being run out of it?

Welp, since you didn't comment on the story on my blog (for once), or when Ann linked to it on her blog, here's your chance, 'toons. (Journalism in action. Cool, huh?)

Please tell us YOUR "assessment of the non-profit."

Because, as I report, Marshall wrote, "The corporation (ReCreate Los Osos, Inc.) was formed but was essentially inactive during its entire existence."

Sooooo, you know... WTF?

What you guys did there makes zero sense: I mean, you, Lou and Marshall start a friggin' "corporation" to "heal" Los Osos, "by having fun together – projects, gatherings, music, plays, walks," then you do "essentially" nothing "during its entire existence," and then, three years later, you fold up shop.

Ya know, according to Ann, dissolving a "non"-profit is a lot of work. So, is Marshall being paid to dissolve, uh whatever ReCreate Los Osos, Inc. was?

And, if so, who's paying him? ReCreate Los Osos, Inc.? Lou? You?

How 'bout the names of the Board of Directors for ReCreate Los Osos, Inc.? I mean, they must just be a-beamin' with pride, considering they held such a prominent position. So, I'm sure they wouldn't mind you listing their names right here, on Ann's blog.... for all to see (that is, if they even existed in the first place).

Now that I think about it, 'toons, did YOU get paid to create the web site... for a "corporation" that "was essentially inactive during its entire existence," because that would be a page directly out of your friend, Pandora's, 501 S(c)am 3 playbook.

As I'm sure you (and Lou) know, that's exactly how your friend does it: Start some sham "non"-profit, or PAC, or whatever, and then collect donations, and then use the money to hire yourself. A beautiful business model. So, you know, maybe she gave you guys some pointers. It sure sounds like it.

Finally, how's the dissolving coming along? Was Marshall ever able to make it official?

Ron, I don't speak for the group, I was the web designer! And no, I did not get paid.

I have no obligation to make sense for you Ron if you are just too lazy to do your job!

If you want the "scoop" then you need to contact Marshall or Lou. Marshall has a law firm in SLO and the Tornatzky number is as easy as pie to find! So try again to be a journalist and contact the participants in the organization.

As long as we're crashing blogs with off-topic rants, how 'bout telling us how Agenda 21 is creeping into Main Street USA Ronnie. Since you are a staunch supporter of Debbie Arnold, I've asked you this question before. Tell us about smart growth and sustainability, and the Black Hawk helicopters on their way to storm troop the American shores. ICLEI, Ronnie, ICLEI.

I mean, you must be beamin' with pride watching her in action last week.

Swill us some tea old boy and give us some lil' Debbie love, as only a journalist as yourself can.

Now you're starting to sound like Gordon Hensley -- with his one man "group" philosophy.

How in the world was ReCreate Los Osos, Inc. a "group?"

According to ReCreate Los Osos, Inc.'s own documentation, the "group" was your husband, Lou. And, considering that you made the "group's" web site, which, was, like, the ONLY thing ReCreate Los Osos, Inc. ever did -- set up a web site to (your words, Lynette), "The reason for 'the reasons' on the (ReCreate Los Osos) website is geared to potential donors. You don't try to get funding with no compelling reason for doing so" -- AND you're Lou's wife, so, uh, yeah, I'm going to lump you in as a "group" member," because, if you are not a member, that means it's just Lou, and one man a "group" does not make... despite what Gordon says.

An anon writes:

"Apparently Ron is against trying to heal the very noticeable rift in Los Osos..."

Please tell me you see the great humor in that statement.

Uh, anon, it's Lou and Lynette that are dissolving their "healing" "corporation," not me.

Although, your funny comment does pose an excellent question: If there's such a "very noticeable rift in Los Osos," then why are Lou and Lynette getting out of the healing business?

Based on your comment, it sounds like their services are needed now, more than ever.

Anyhoot, now that's it's become obvious that Lynette NOW wants absolutely nothing to do with the ReCreate Los Osos, Inc. disaster, if I find some time this week, I'll lob off a call to Marshall, to ask him:

1) Is he getting paid to dissolve ReCreate Los Osos, Inc., and, if so, by whom, and if not, why is he doing all of that work for free?

2) What were the names of the Board of Directors for ReCreate Los Osos, Inc.

Finally, anon writes:

"He does not, nor ever did, work as a journalist for any publisher!"

That's also funny, because it's insulting to all of the publishers I've worked for. Touché, anon!

[Billy, Ann nailed it: You need to clean your glasses if you think I'm a "staunch supporter of Debbie Arnold." The only reason I voted for Debbie was because there were only two names on the ballot, Jim Patterson's, and Debbie's, and after what Patterson, and his friend, Bruce Gibson, did to the citizens of Los Osos -- which, frankly, was disgusting -- I was FORCED to vote for Debbie, because, had I not voted for either, it still would have been a 1/2 vote for Patterson, and that was completely unacceptable, of course, considering what he did to so many of my fellow SLO County citizens.

Ron, you really are correct in that you have been "insulting to all the publishers" you imagine you worked for. Blogs don't count, neither does sweeping the floor of the Tribune. You, fortunately, have never been a journalist for any legitimate publication, have you? You've never been able to name even one that could be verified!

Ron Crawford worked for the New Times as a freelance reporter before getting axed. Steve Moss believed Ron had some "deep mental issues," and said, "The world does not revolve around Pandora Nash-Karner."

Too bad Ron isn't on top of his game. Arnold was one HUGE misstep. Patterson wouldn't have hemmed and hawed for hours forcing the rest of the Supes to eye roll over endless questions meant to stall the inevitable. Even Mecham stepped up to the plate and was ready to vote hours earlier.

I guess a sewer in Los Osos holds more sway over Ron's "thinking" or whatever you want to call it, than the water basin in serious crisis in his area of the county. Has he even followed that huge story? If that basin goes, the number of people in serious economic stress will dwarf any number in Los Osos. The BIG wine industry players and the Agenda 21-ers pushed for Arnold and apparently the fate of those thousands of smaller landowners is less important to Ron. How he as a "journalist" did not see where this was going to go is amazing.... oh wait.....

I think it is kinda hilarious that Ron never even looked at the RCLO website when it was up to see who was on the board (hint: I was not). Hey, good luck with Marshall. Your reputation precedes you so don't get your hopes up!

I don't speak for the group. If you missed the website when it was up with all the info on it, well, it apparently didn't matter to you then. Why is it so important to you and Ron now (or am I being redundant)?

C'mon Ron. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war, which is despicable to me, but that doesn't mean I would vote for Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz because of that. At the most I might write in a protest vote. Unless of course I found the politics of Palin and Cruz simpatico with mine. Which is, well, ridiculous. Man up on your Debbie-love.

And I would find the actions of Gibson and Patterson nothing short of miraculous. After 30+ years of being held hostage by whack job politics in this little community, I soon will no longer be pissing in my drinking water. And talk to me in 3 years and see if the increase in the value of my property doesn't more than pay my $25,000 investment in this sewer.

Uh, wrong about the sleeping-with part. (Funny when witless people can't think of anything interestingly snarky to say they fall back on the old "sleeping with" cliche. Lazy, lazy.) As for the mentally ill part, sort of right. I mean I allowed YOU to comment in this section, didn't I?

Regarding "non profits," it only takes three people to register a "non profit corporation" in CA. Prez, Sec & Treasurer. Anybody can fill out the papers and start one. We did that when a handful of us started work on getting the county's first off--leash dog park going. (at El Chorro regional park) To date, I still don't really know what use it was, except we were advised it can offer some liability protection for a Board, or something. And it does allow for some governmental oversight of groups saying they're "non profit, etc." It's not a 501c3 so it has no tax benefit for donors. You have to report annually to the Franchise Tax Board and the AG, but for our group that was a waste of time since we had nothing to "tax" since we were a non-profit. The real heavy lifting on the dog park came through our becoming a subcommittee of SLOPOST, a 501c3. Years after the park was built our board finally decided to dissolve this useless appendage. That's when I found out what a nightmare that was. The whole deal was like a roach motel. Once you file that simple form you're in for it if you ever realize it's a waste of time and want to de-clutter your organization.

Apropos Paso, I was out back of beyond in Templeton yesterday and Holy Cow. Unless you ramble around in the back country out there, you have no idea how many grape vines are in the ground. The word "gazillion" comes to mind. It's like an iceberg -- the ones you see from main roads are only the tip, but go down some of the little county roads and you understand why and how Paso got into such a mess.

Considering that the only stories that seem to get any traction in this shallow, shallow county, are the ones that involve genitalia, I was kinda hoping we could let that deliberately false character assassination slide.

Oh well. Cow's outta the barn the now.

An anon writes:

"Funny how Lynette has never posted the names of the board members"

That IS funny, isn't it? I mean, look at what a simple, straight-forward question that is, yet, she refuses to answer it. (Of course, the REALLY funny part is, IF that board ever existed, I can only imagine how those people are now screaming at Lynette to NOT publish their names. HIGHlarious!)

Billy writes:

"... talk to me in 3 years and see if the increase in the value of my property doesn't more than pay my $25,000 investment in this sewer.... "

What about your $5,000 investment in the Tri-W fraud? A disastrous non-"project" that will never exist, yet, as I recently exposed, you, and "more than 4,000" other PZers will be paying for it for the next 20 years, including on your next property tax bill, which starts being due on November 1st?

Are you happy with THAT "investment"... that you're about to be fleeced on (again) in two months?

Calhouns Can(n)ons

About the Can(n)ons

Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com

To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful. Edward R. Murrow

It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.Antoine de Saint-ExuperyThe Little Prince

No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly. Montaigne